Subject: RE: [Sipping-tispan] RE: Voicemail-uri draft

From: "Hans Erik van Elburg (RY/ETM)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:24:22 +0100

Hi Paul,

I thought we are discussing call forwarding, why are you throwing in
call transfer now?

It is interesting, but I think confuses the discussion.

You can ask the same question for call forwarding of course. And this
comes basically down to a requirement from operators where they offer a
service/capability/"value add" to a user that they would like to charge
for.

Best Regards,

/Hans Erik 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:14 PM
To: GARCIN Sebastien RD-CORE-ISS
Cc: Cullen Jennings; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
Denis Alexeitsev
Subject: Re: [Sipping-tispan] RE: Voicemail-uri draft

GARCIN Sebastien RD-CORE-ISS wrote:

>>1/ The draft does not address redirecting number which is mandatory 
>>requirement for TISPAN (if IETF won't consider billing, TISPAN will be

>>forced to define a P-header for this purpose)
> 
> 
> IETF would probably call it accounting not billing but I don't think
IETF has any fundamental objections to billing. Can you help explain the
requirements here?
> 
> [SG: The redirecting party is the party that should get billed for the

> leg it created. For this leg the redirecting party plays the same role

> of the P-Asserted-ID with regards to billing. This is why it is 
> required in SIP. Also if the call encountered several call forwarding 
> events (e.g. I forward my call to my mobile phone, that then gets 
> forwarded to my voicemail), the redirecting number will be different 
> from the original called number (i.e. termed as the "target" in the 
> voicemail draft).We therefore need both identities.]

I keep trying to understand what this is going to mean in practice, when
there aren't really separate call legs. Consider the following:

- X calls Y
- Y transfers X to Z
- X and Z are using phones connected to a single enterprise sip system
- Y is across the world on a public network

At the completion of the transfer there is only one "call leg", between
X and Z, on a private network. So what is it that Y is paying for?

	Paul

_______________________________________________
Sipping-tispan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-tispan

_______________________________________________
Sipping-tispan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-tispan

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:18:33 -0500

> I thought we are discussing call forwarding, why are you throwing in

Oh, sorry. I just screwed up while writing it.

> You can ask the same question for call forwarding of course.

Right. Assume I meant that X calls Y who forwards to Z. X and Z are in 
the same enterprise, and Y is far away.

> And this

I'm just wondering exactly what it is they will charge for. Are they 
actually going to insist on staying in the loop in order to preserve the 
fiction that there are separate call legs to charge for? Or are they 
going to get out of the loop but still charge as if they were in? Or is 
Y going to pay half of the (nonexistent) charge for the call between X 
and Z? Or ???

The basic issue is that phrasing this in terms of "call legs" makes no 
sense.

	Paul